talking to media

[mnemonic@eff.org]

[During the audio hookup at Saturday's meeting, the following paper of
Mike Godwin's got mentioned; I asked if he could send a copy to
cypherpunks.  It's going in the ftp site, as well--Eric]

Go ahead and forward this to cypherpunks.

This is the short posting I wrote in 1990 when I explained how 
I got the Steve Jackson Games case into the press.

-----

:r talking

This is a file I posted to an Austin BBS back when I gave
the SJG story to the local papers.


 104: Talking to Media, part 1
  By: Johnny Mnemonic  [54]
Date: 11:07  3/18/90

As I've promised on another message base, here's the beginning of
discussion of how to bring stories to the media.

Since I keep thinking of different things people ought to know about how
to take a story to the media, I'm going to make this a multi-post
discussion.

1) TRY TO THINK LIKE THE REPORTER YOU'RE TALKING TO.

One of the things that happens when people know about an event or series
of events that may make a good news story is that they assume the
importance of the story will be obvious to anyone.

Sometimes this is true (when the tipster knows about a murder, for
example). Often it's not.

So, when I tell a reporter about a story I think she should want to cover,
I make sure to stress the aspects of the story that are likely to interest
that reporter and/or the readers of her publication. For example, when I
spoke to Kyle Pope about the Illuminati seizure, I stressed the following:

a) Steve Jackson Games is an Austin business that may end up being damaged
by the seizure.

b) Nobody has given this story anything like major coverage in the
national media, or (so far as I knew) in other geographic areas. (I was
telling him he had a major "scoop" opportunity.)

c) There are some very dramatic aspects to this story. (I told him about
the 20-year-old LoD member who woke up on the morning of March 1 with a
gun pointed at him by a Secret Service agent.)


2) IF YOU'RE GOING TO MEET THE REPORTER IN PERSON, TRY TO BRING SOMETHING
ON PAPER.

There are lots of good reasons to follow this rule:

a) Believe it or not, but people take stuff on paper a little more
seriously than the spoken word. It's nice to give the reporter something
that lends substance to what you're saying, even if the substance is
printouts from your own computer.

b) It makes life easier for the reporter, who doesn't have to write down
every single thing you tell her. Reporters like to have materials they can
use for reference as they research and write their stories.

c) It helps you remember to say everything you want to say. Nothing is
more frustrating than trying to get a reporter interested in your story,
getting inconclusive results, and then realizing later that you should
have told the reporter about something. (E.g., "Damn! I forgot to tell
him what 'cyberpunk' means, so he won't know how the federal agents
misinterpreted the manual.")

When I went to the Statesman, I took edited printouts of discussions from
Flight, from SMOF, and from comp.dcom.telecom on Usenet. I also took some
private Email I had received, with the names of the senders deleted. And I
took my copy of the WHOLE EARTH REVIEW with the article on Usenet. My
object was to convey to him the scale of concern about the seizures, plus
give him enough background to be able to ask reasonably informed questions
of the people he talked to.


3) GIVE THE REPORTER OTHER PEOPLE TO TALK TO, IF POSSIBLE.

Two basic justifications for this rule: First, it'll help your credibility
(especially if you don't already know the reporter personally). Second,
multiple sources or witnesses usually enable the reporter to filter out
what is mere opinion or speculation from what everybody actually knows for
a fact.


4) DON'T ASSUME THAT THE REPORTER WILL COVER THE STORY THE WAY YOU'D LIKE
HER TO.

Reporters' accuracy and focus in a story are constrained by several
factors:


a) The amount of available time. Reporters have to be quick studies, and
often have to assimilate a complex story in a hurry. This necessarily
increases the risk of inaccuracy in a story, and gives you an even
greater reason to follow Rules 1 through 3.

2) The reporters' obligation to be fair. This means they have to talk to
people on the other side of the issues from you. This in turn means that
you're unlikely to get a story that represents or promotes your point of
view at the expense of those who oppose you.


<More on this topic as I think of things. Please feel free to comment.>



--Mike